[...] the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents a philosophical doctrine or position with similar properties: desirable to its proponent but only lightly defensible. The Motte is the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed. — Nicholas Shackel
He accuses postmodernists of withdrawing to their Mottes rather than hoisting their battle axes to fight it out on the Bailey, but he is just as guilty of avoiding a true fight, systematically retreating to his siege engine, or whatever the offensive corollary of the defensive Motte is. — Randy Harris
What do you think? Is it helpful and does it do anything that other informal fallacy concepts don't already do? — Jamal
I think it is in essence the strawman fallacy. — Pantagruel
I haven't heard of this fallacy before and I think it is helpful. — Art48
I think it's vaguely like the moving the goalposts fallacy — Art48
Nah, a strawman is overly simplifying an opponents argument, and/or making it ridiculous in order to counter-argue it more easily. — Christoffer
It seems to be the same principle as a strawman to me, only used defensively, as you state. — Pantagruel
I think the difference is that in a strawman the act is to simplify and ridicule, but in this case the act is to retreat to something solid and simple. — Christoffer
Interesting point, the Motte and Bailey fallacy could be seen as a kind of reversal insofar as it seems to consist in defending rather than attacking a strawman.I think it is in essence the strawman fallacy. — Pantagruel
What do you think? Is it helpful and does it do anything that other informal fallacy concepts don't already do? — Jamal
A: Trans women are not women. [bailey]
B: That's a transparently bigoted comment, functioning as it does to directly negate the gender identities of trans people and thereby deny their claims to equal treatment. — Jamal
Motte: The climate is changing. Something should be done. We're not climate change deniers! — Mikie
The more correct statement would be that "trans women are not female," yes? Since "woman" (and "girl") can often relate to gender identity. — Mikie
A's statement is more than an appeal to emotion to B. Notice A's shift from a cultural/societal statement to a factual (biology) claim. You can't argue against facts. See below:The second statement of A seems more of a response to the appeal to emotion of B and not necessarily a retreat of any sort. — NOS4A2
In the trans women example, the axiomatic basis on one side would seem to be that biological truth trumps cultural fiction. — apokrisis
I agree.B is where the fallacy is. — NOS4A2
I know it's just an example, and I don't want to go off about transgenderism, but just so I'm clear: The more correct statement would be that "trans women are not female," yes? Since "woman" (and "girl") can often relate to gender identity. — Mikie
It's true that people making statements like (A) are probably bigoted. But in the cases where a person is meaning to express the corrected statement, it may just be an honest mistake. I would put myself in this camp, although I see no reason to make either statement. — Mikie
"trans women are not female," — Mikie
“trans women are not biologically female” — Jamal
But if one wants to distinguish between trans women and non-trans-women, we already have a term that’s better than “men”, which is … “trans women”. — Jamal
To the posters that are saying it's similar, I'm not seeing where the strawman fallacy comes into play here. What would be considered the strawman in this scenario? Person A's initial (bailey) argument? — Mikie
In other words, B might just as often be guilty of a failure to observe the principle of charity in taking A to be in the bailey, i.e., distorting A's position such that they can easily defeat them. This looks like a description of strawmanning. — Jamal
Where the motte-and-bailey image fails is that in a serious argument, both sides would be going back to basics this way.
In the trans women example, the axiomatic basis on one side would seem to be that biological truth trumps cultural fiction. On the other, it would be some version of the reverse.
The stepping back by one side ought to be an invitation to the other to take up the challenge of defending the reverse in good old dialectic fashion. — apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.